• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


potatomcwhiskey last won the day on December 10 2015

potatomcwhiskey had the most liked content!

About potatomcwhiskey

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Dublin, Ireland
  1. Yup, and there are only a few general options because you cannot rely on the "honour" system for people to not do it: Design the game around their existence, rendering their use unecessary. Design the game around the assumption everyone will use them, penalizing people who don't. Implement extremely invasive anti-cheat software. Its a no win situation imo.
  2. Zergs are inevitable, however there are things you can do to mitigate the advantages Zergs have. Anyone who has played Rust knows that zergs are powerful, but they also understand the limitations of zergs. The first one is Friendly Fire. Being unable to hurt your allies means you can spam attacks willy nilly. If you have the potential to damage your allies then you must take the time to differentiate between enemies and allies which gives an advantage to smaller groups because of statistics. 2 guys vs 5 guys randomly hitting each other, the smaller are statistically less likely to hit their allies and therefore the bigger group has to spend more effort in identifying friend or foe. [JUMP-CHECK] This small thing helps close the gap between big and small groups by simple mechanics. It also increases the skill ceiling[and floor] for groups because in order to work together you have to develop a cohesive relationship with your peer and strategies to mitigate friendly fire and it's consequences. The second one is friend/foe identification which ties into friendly fire. If I am easily able to identify an enemy from a distance large groups are inherently buffed. Identifying a friend should require getting close and wearing a uniform or some action in-game[E.G saying "Jump check" in voice coms and everyone jumping]. Those uniforms should also be able to be stolen in the midst of a battle which creates even more chaos for the larger group that the smaller group can exploit. I have lost track of the amount of times we would be raiding in Rust and then we all have to rip our uniforms off and go full delta force because a couple enemies stole the uniforms off our dead comrades and were shredding us from within our own group. I have also ifiltrated enemy groups by using their uniforms and psychological gameplay movement even though I wasn't in their voice communication to gain access to their base and perform espionage such as recon, theft and sabotage. There is also another disadvantage of large groups that as the group grows in size the less cohesive the relationships and familiarity between individual members are. You might be able to perform sabotage just by looking similar and behaving similar to them if they are large enough and don't have the tools to instantly and easily identify who friend and foe is. Instancing interactions between groups is absolutely not the way to go about things as the most interesting part of gameplay is unexpected and assymetric combat where the doctrine of your group and the discipline of it should decide who wins or loses. I personally prefer subtle game mechanics that directly influence player behavior[Friendly Fire, Friend or Foe identification etc.] over what I perceive to be heavy handed misguided game mechanics [Debuffs for groups, instanced combat] that are the "easy way out" solutions.
  3. Because it gives the developers another lever to design and balance the gameplay around. It really is that simple and its the only justification the mechanic needs.
  4. I am personally fan of diverse buffs and debuffs that offer players choices and tactical utility aswell as passive power. I like there to be a good mix of short term - high impact buffs, [E.G 200% Movespeed for 2s for allies in x radius or next attack crits], medium term medium impact buffs, [Next 10 attacks reduce skill cooldowns by 0.4s each / Gain 500HPregen per sec for 15 seconds] long term low impact buffs [increase Stamina Regen by 20% for 30s / 8% Movespeed for 30s] and passive buffs/debuffs [Every 10 basic attacks heal for Weapondamage + 400 / Enemies hit by you deal 1.5% less damage for 3s stacking up to 4 times]. So I can definitely get behind some of the ideas in this thread. I am 100% on board with making things more reactive and interactive.
  5. This has already been heavily requested however I think currently its not within the scope of this testing environment. Trading will be implemented at some point, however I don't think it will be implemented in the Big World phase of the testing.
  6. The problem is that movement speed IS mitigation. If you can outrun them you don't take damage. Therefore movement speed is also the counter to movement speed mitigation - meaning everyone wears the lightest armour. Its pretty simple, tried and tested in every game that tried to implement it.
  7. CC Durations too long [Mino net 5s], cooldowns too short [Mino net 10s = 50% uptime]. Not enough ways to counter CC. E.G. Cleansing CC from allies. VETO: Giving people immunity from CC after getting hit by CC. Properly stacking your crowd-control with teammates should be rewarded. Giving people magical shields from crowd control is a shoehorn way to fix the problem when the most elegant solution is working the numbers and mechanics.
  8. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt before I discard their entire existence. Our friend came up short.
  9. Ok so you don't have an argument thank you for proving my point that you have nothing positive to contribute to this discussion. Thanks for admitting defeat!
  10. Pretend I'm stupid. Explain it to me in-depth.
  11. Stating the historical facts of how armour was used and the realities of armour actually impacted warriors in combat was a silly argument? I can provide you countless links to back up everything I wrote if you would like to fact check me as to what reality is. Please explain how armour creates a more diverse enviroment and raises the tactical skill-ceiling. You keep making these statements but offer no actual argument as to why you think these things are true. And I think it is because you have no real way to justify your belief. I would like you to prove me wrong. A statement made without a supporting argument can be discarded without argument.
  12. I mean if you're not even going to read my posts before you respond to them I don't see any value to your contributions here or anywhere else. Did you not see my refutation of the "It makes sense in the real world" argument a page ago? I'll quote it for you. Let me know if you need clarifications on any parts.
  13. I like how you made a show of responding to what I wrote but actually wrote nothing that directly addresses what I wrote. I fail to see how this is a reasonable response to the statement that in order for there to be a reason to wear heavy armour that penalizes your movement speed or mobility there needs to be signifcant advantages that you get as a trade off. But hey feel free to talk past people while you quote them. I also like how you are making very specific statements about gameplay flow and interactions that haven't been tested and don't exist yet. Except I have provided a very convincing argument using Game Theory and a simple analysis of the decision structure of players around movement speed resulting in a single optimal choice and your refutation is "Nope" as if it is some kind of persuasive argument in of itself to just say "No" and repeat a counter assertion without a supporting argument. At no point did I use the argument as to whether it was inconveinient and at every point I talked about how it would colour player interactions and decision making with regards to general gameplay, but hey feel free to paint me with a zero value strawman fallacy and see how far you get in convincing people that your argument has a fight in the race. I also at no point said that players should all move at the same movement speed and instead I talked about movement speed being based around archetypal differences and balanced against things like Hunger, and overall AT power. Saying "In your opinion" as if it is a valuable contribution to the discussion has nil value. I could just as easily say "In your opinion" to everything you wrote and we would be no closer to finding an interesting discussion or argument about the game. And I remember them too. Those memories colour my argumentation even to this day, just as they colour your arguments to this day. I recommend you take off the rose coloured nostalgia glasses and do a real critical assessment of those old games which had a lot wrong with them that shouldn't just be dismissed as "This is just the way it is". I have played countless MMO's where entire classes and archetypes were invalid for years because of movement related abilities such as roots, boosts and slows which revolved around the entire gameplay near being solely balance around such things. What you call watering things down could very easily be reversed upon you as I have done in this very thread. Forcing single optimal choices on players does not add extra depth to the gameplay and simply makes certain builds completely unviable tactically and strategically limiting player choice. I personally think that the challenge should come from the interaction of players and not from obfuscating mechanics. I do appreciate depth and complexity. But complexity for the sake of complexity when there are clear alternatives seems a waste of developer time and energy. And I guarentee you this. Balancing movement speed differentials in an assymetric open world game[i.E with no fixed teams] is several orders of magnitude harder to get right in terms of sheer developer energy that I do not see any value in implementing it when that developer energy could be used to make a simpler and more interactive system in a fraction of the time.
  14. In any game where movementspeed and mobility differ between characters there is a huge over-representation of high movespeed/mobility characters because of the raw power such a statistic gives you in player-player interactions and time saved travelling. In order for there to be movespeed and mobility differences between the archetypes/classes [in this case armour] there needs to be a significant and major advantage to giving up that movementspeed or mobility elsewise the only logical choice will be to go for maximum movement speed in the majority of cases. Having heavy armour reduce movement speed actively reduces the amount of viable and interesting playstyles and homogenizes players into a strict set of "Good" playstyles. Don't inject strawment into the argument. Nobody wants everyone to move at the exact same speed. It would far more interesting if your armour choice changed how some of your spells worked rather than changed how fast you ran by some arbitrary amount.
  15. Killer-Socializer. Achievement [Aquisition of in-game advancement or progression] and Exploration [Finding things and learning] are the least interesting thing I could possibly imagine in a game. I am more interested in player-player interaction whether friendly or confrontational.